5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and is currently serving a sentence in Daugavgrīva Prison.
6.  On 23 August 2010 criminal proceedings were initiated concerning a burglary. On 1 September 2010 they were joined to another set of proceedings concerning another burglary.
7.  On 3 September 2010 the applicant was officially declared a suspect.
8.  On 6 September 2010, following a request from the police, an investigating judge of the Daugavpils Court issued a warrant for his arrest and detention. The decision reads as follows:
“The judge, having examined the case material, the arguments of the [investigative authority] and the attorney’s opinion, considers that the request is justified and should be granted.
Section 241(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law sets out the grounds for the application of a procedural compulsory measure, namely a person’s resistance to the reaching of the aim of criminal proceedings in specific proceedings or to the performance of a separate procedural action, or non-execution or improper execution of his or her procedural duties.
In accordance with section 272(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law a person may be detained only if specific factual information obtained in the course of criminal proceedings creates a reasonable suspicion that the person in question has committed a criminal offence, for which the law provides for a custodial sentence, and if no other preventive measure can ensure that they will not commit another criminal offence or obstruct or avoid the pre-trial proceedings, trial or execution of the sentence.
Section 12(2) of the Criminal Procedure Law provides that human rights may be restricted only in cases where such restriction is required for public safety reasons and according to the nature and danger of the criminal offence.
On 3 September 2013 the [applicant] was declared a suspect of a criminal offence proscribed by section 175(3) of the Criminal Law. Information obtained in the course of criminal proceedings excludes reasonable doubt about his implication in a serious criminal offence. The only possible sanction for commission of this crime is a custodial sentence.
It follows from the case material that the [applicant] has declared [to the domestic authorities] his place of residence as [address of Daugavgrīva Prison] in Daugavpils. The case material also contains [a document from another set of criminal proceedings] with [his] signature, whereby he undertakes an obligation to reside at [a particular address] in Daugavpils. On 25 August 2010 the [investigating authority] sent a notice to that address for the [applicant] to appear at a police station on 27 August 2010. On a copy of that notice the investigator has made a note that the [applicant] failed to appear at the allotted time and did not inform [anyone] about the reasons for his absence. On 2 September 2010 a decision was made to forcibly escort the [applicant] to the [investigating authority] on 3 September 2010, but [this decision] could not be executed since the [applicant] was not living at [that particular address]. Police officers verified on several occasions other possible places where the applicant might be, but it was impossible to find him or where he might be; this is evidenced by the police officers’ reports of 4 and 7 August 2010. Information has been obtained in the course of the criminal proceedings that the [applicant] is renting an apartment in the [name of a particular street] area of Daugavpils, but the specific address is unknown. In the circumstances, there are grounds to consider that the [applicant] is hiding and avoiding participation in the investigation, thereby resisting the reaching of the aim of the criminal proceedings and obstructing the normal course of the criminal proceedings and a speedy and fair resolution of issues arising from criminal law.
Information obtained from the Penalty Register shows that the [applicant] has been tried on five occasions, [reference to various crimes, including burglary]. Taking into account the time spent in pre-trial detention, he has served the [custodial] sentence imposed and ... is currently [subject to an] additional penalty – police control. In the circumstances, there are reasonable grounds to consider that at liberty, the [applicant] could continue to carry out criminal activities and would commit another criminal offence.
Taking into account the aforementioned, the judge concludes that the [investigating authority’s] request is justified and that the security measure [of] detention should be imposed on the [applicant], since imposition of another security measure could not prevent him from committing another criminal offence or from avoiding the investigation. Also, given that the [applicant’s] actual location is not known, it is necessary to issue a search warrant.”
9.  The applicant was arrested on 9 September 2010.
10.  On 27 September 2010 a judge of the Latgale Regional Court examined an appeal brought by the applicant and upheld the initial detention order. This decision reads as follows:
“Having assessed the reasons mentioned in the [applicant’s] complaint and his request, having heard the explanations given during the hearing, having examined the case material of the procedural compulsory measures and of the [instant] case, [and] taking into account the opinion of the [investigative authority], I consider that the decision of the investigating judge of the Daugavpils Court, to impose on the [applicant] the security measure of detention, should be upheld.
I exclude from the [6 September 2010] decision a note to the effect that the [applicant] was avoiding participation in the investigation. According to the available information...on 16 July 2010 the [applicant] was convicted of [various crimes, including burglary] and sentenced to six years and three months’ imprisonment, police control for two years and confiscation of property. Taking into account the time spent in pre-trial detention, he has served the [custodial] sentence imposed. That judgment took effect on 7 August 2010... There is no convincing evidence that [he] received the notice to appear [at the police station] or [other] procedural documents sent [to him]...
The conclusion made by the investigating judge – that detention had to be ordered for the [applicant] – is correct, since specific factual information obtained in the course of the criminal proceedings has created a reasonable suspicion that he committed a crime proscribed by section 175(3) of the Criminal Law, [for which] the law provides for a custodial sentence. Imposing another security measure could not ensure that the [applicant] would not commit another criminal offence. These reasons correspond to section 272(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law. They are confirmed by the information available within the criminal proceedings. The [applicant] has been sentenced on several occasions for crimes against property. He has also served sentences in prison but he has not drawn the necessary conclusions and has not reformed. He is suspected of an analogous crime committed while under police control [in connection with his previous conviction]. These circumstances are sufficient to conclude that at liberty, the [applicant] could commit another criminal offence. The investigating judge has rightly concluded that imposition of another security measure could not prevent him from committing another criminal offence. The [applicant’s] detention is justified. The public safety (sabiedrības drošība) is more important than the liberty of an individual who is acting contrary to the interests of society.”
11.  On 12 November 2010 the investigating judge of the Daugavpils Court carried out a bi-monthly review of the applicant’s detention and adopted a decision in that regard. It reads as follows:
“Having heard the arguments of the [investigating authority], the [applicant’s] explanation and the attorney’s position and having examined the case material, the judge concludes that the security measure [of] detention imposed on the [applicant] should continue to be applied.
The security measure [of] detention was imposed on the [applicant] to ensure public safety and to prevent other criminal offences being committed. The grounds for detention have not changed. The [applicant] is suspected of two burglaries...a serious crime for which the law only provides for a custodial sentence. Previously, the [applicant] was tried on six occasions; his last conviction on 16 July 2010 concerned [various crimes, including burglary] and he was sentenced to six years and three months’ imprisonment, police control for two years and confiscation of property. Taking into account the time spent in pre-trial detention, he has served the [custodial] sentence imposed and he is suspected of an analogous, serious crime while under police control [in connection with his previous conviction]; therefore, a possibility continues to exist that at liberty, he could continue to carry out criminal activities and would commit another criminal offence, and the grounds for detention under section 272(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law have not disappeared. Pre-trial investigation continues within a reasonable time and there is no unjustified delay.
It is not within the investigating judge’s competence to examine and assess the evidence obtained; therefore, the [applicant’s] submission – that the detention [order] should be lifted as there is no evidence of his guilt – is not substantiated. Besides, the [applicant’s] allegations that the [investigating authority] has ignored his requests and has not carried out additional questioning should not be taken into account as they contradict the case material.
...
Section 277(6) of the Criminal Procedure Law provides that a person suspected of or charged with a crime may not be held in pre-trial detention for more than six months.
The [applicant] has been detained since 9 September 2010, that is, for slightly more than two months. The time-limit for detention has not been exceeded.
In the circumstances, the investigating judge considers that the [applicant’s] detention should be continued.”
12.  On 9 December 2010 the applicant was officially charged with the two burglaries. On 20 December 2010 the pre-trial investigation was concluded and the case was forwarded for adjudication to the Daugavpils Court.
13.  On 12 January 2011 another review of the applicant’s detention was carried out and he was retained in custody.
14.  On 18 February 2011 the Daugavpils Court held the first hearing on the merits of the case, during which the applicant asked the court to change the security measure applied to him. In this respect, the court held as follows:
“During the hearing, the [applicant] submitted a request that the security measure [applied to him] be changed as there is no evidence for his conviction; the gathering and verification of the necessary evidence requires more than six months, therefore his continued detention is not permitted. The [applicant] undertakes to attend all hearings.
Having heard the [applicant’s] explanation [and the] opinions of the victim, attorney and prosecutor, the court considers that [his] request to change the security measure should be dismissed for the following reasons.
In accordance with section 249(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law, if during the application of a procedural compulsory measure the grounds for the application of the measure disappear or change, or the provisions for the application of the measure or behaviour of the person change, or if other circumstances are ascertained that determined the choice of the compulsory measure, an [investigating authority] should take a decision to change or lift the measure.
It follows from the wording of the decision of 6 September 2010 by the investigating judge of the Daugavpils Court that the [applicant] was detained because he was hiding and avoiding participation in the investigation... Besides, it has been ascertained that there are reasonable grounds to conclude that at liberty, the [applicant] could continue to carry out criminal activities and would commit another criminal offence.
Taking into account that the [applicant] has been charged with a serious crime, that the grounds for detention have not disappeared or changed, that the conditions for its application have not changed, and that the legal requirements concerning the length of detention have been met, the court considers that the [applicant’s] request to change the security measure should be dismissed”.
15.  The second trial hearing was held on 7 April 2011. The applicant once again requested a review of his continued detention. In this respect, the court held as follows:
“During the hearing, the [applicant] submitted a request that the security measure [applied to him] be changed due to changes in the grounds for his detention and for application of the measure. The Latgale Regional Court excluded any reference that the [applicant] would avoid the investigation. Section 59 of the Criminal Procedure Law sets out the [types of evidence] allowing the suspicion that [a person has committed a criminal offence]. However, in the instant case there is no evidence for his conviction. The charges are not justified [as] the [applicant] has not admitted his guilt, therefore there is no reason to consider that he would continue to commit criminal offences...Detention can only be ordered with a view to preparing a judgment, but it is clear that judgment cannot be prepared for 9 September 2011 as all movements and escort (visas kustības un konvojēšanas) needs at least half a year, therefore his continued detention is of a punitive nature, which is prohibited by law. The [applicant] asks to be released, undertakes to attend all hearings and not to commit any offences.
Having heard the [applicant’s] explanation [and the] opinions of the attorney and prosecutor, the court considers that his request to change the security measure should be dismissed for the following reasons.
In accordance with section 249(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law, if during the application of a procedural compulsory measure, the grounds for the application of the measure disappear or change, or the provisions for the application of the measure or behaviour of the person change, or if other circumstances are ascertained that determined the choice of the compulsory measure, an [investigating authority] shall take a decision to change or lift the measure.
It follows from the text of the decision of 6 September 2010 by the investigating judge of the Daugavpils Court that the [applicant] was detained because he was avoiding participation in the investigation... Besides, it has been ascertained that there are reasonable grounds to conclude that at liberty, the [applicant] could continue to carry out criminal activities and would commit another criminal offence.
The [applicant] rightly points out that the Latgale Regional Court in its decision of 27 September 2010 excluded any reference to the grounds of the investigative judge’s decision that the [applicant] was avoiding participation in the investigation. However, the grounds for detention – the possibility that at liberty, the [applicant] could commit another criminal offence – have not changed. The [applicant] has been convicted on several occasions, most recently on 16 July 2010. In the instant case, he has been charged with crimes committed on 20 August 2010 and on the night of 22...August 2010; therefore, another security measure could not ensure that the [applicant] would not commit other criminal offences.
The court has not yet started proceedings and, accordingly, [its] assessment of the evidence, therefore there is no reason to decide on the lack of evidence for the [applicant’s] conviction; this has to be done when preparing a judgment in the case. When applying detention, the investigating judge and judge of the appellate court found that specific factual information obtained in the criminal proceedings created a reasonable suspicion that the [applicant] had committed a crime proscribed by section 175(3) of the Criminal Law, for which the law imposes a custodial sentence.
In the circumstances, it has to be concluded that the grounds for detention under section 272(1) have not disappeared.
Taking into account that the [applicant] has been charged with a serious crime, that the grounds for detention have not disappeared or changed, that the conditions for its application have not changed, and that the legal requirements concerning the length of detention have been met, the court considers that the [applicant’s] request to change the security measure should be dismissed.”
16.  During a hearing on 6 June 2011 the applicant’s request to be released from detention was rejected for almost identical reasons.
17.  On 8 August 2011 the Daugavpils Court decided to release him from detention as the maximum legal length of pre-trial detention (twelve months) was approaching.
18.  At the time the parties to the present case finished exchanging their observations, the criminal proceedings against the applicant had not yet been concluded.